Free_Opinions @ Free_Opinions @feddit.uk

Independent thinker valuing discussions grounded in reason, not emotions.

---

Read more

Posts

10

Comments

570

Joined

1 yr. ago

Like I said, I'm not for this ban. In my view what ever reason is used to ban TikTok should then apply to every other social media aswell. I don't want the government to dictate which content I'm allowed to consume - I should be free to decide for myself. I simply don't view this issue thru the lens of free speech.

It's similar to banning porn. While it's objectively bad for you, so is drinking gasoline and that's not illegal either. If you want to drink gasoline you should be allowed to.

I'm not for banning TikTok but the ban also doesn't conflict with your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not about having a megaphone, it's about not being procecuted for the things you've said. You're still free to say the exact same things you were allowed to before the TikTok ban - you just can't do it on TikTok.

It would be stronger but I doubt that would correlate much with speed or endurance. I can squat almost double my bodyweight but my cooper test score is around 2500. A runner with way less leg strenght could easily outperform me.

So other than destroying your teeth, it sounds like the conclusion here is more or less that being overweight is unhealthy and overweight people tend to drink sugary drinks. It's just empty calories. If you're naturally lean despite drinking sugar-sweetened drinks then the negative health effects of it are probably significantly lower.

Personally, I just tend to consume mostly artificially sweetened drinks. It takes the edge off when I desire something sweet and to get any significant negative health effects from aspartamine you'd need to be consuming insane amounts of it.

Why?

It's quite amazing how much data can be recovered from hard drives that have been even in fires. I think they recovered like 95% of the data from the hard drives on the challenger shuttle that blew up.

the other guy isn’t really trying to learn anything or even to change your mind. He’s acting for an audience of people who already agree with him.

This is why I argue that votes should be hidden from everyone. Audience capture is one of the biggest issues on platforms like Lemmy. Many users feel like they’ve "won" an argument simply because their broad, nuance-free generalizations get upvoted by the masses.

To add to your point about avoiding engagement with certain types of users, one thing I’ve noticed that really sets some people off is when they take something I’ve said, draw their own extreme conclusions from it, and then start accusing me of something completely untrue. Instead of defending myself against these ridiculous accusations, I now either ignore them or stick firmly to the original point.

What’s fascinating is how often they double down, repeatedly trying to get me to explain why I’m not, for example, a Nazi. When I refuse to entertain their absurd line of reasoning, they seem to lose their minds.

Blocking on Lemmy doesn't prevent them from seeing your "reasonable" takes. It just hides that user's messages from you. They wont even know you have blocked them.

Mullvad seems to be consistently good. I've been on it for +5 years. Before I used PIA but they got sold to a sketchy company.

I'm sure you're never wrong about anything. Maybe you should start a podcast.

At times like early covid there wasn't much facts and evidence available. Back then masks didn't stop the spread of the virus but vaccines were supposed to. Who decides what the facts are in times like that?

Yeah, but the question was; who decides what is disinformation? If it was some truly competent and unbiased AI system then I perhaps wouldn't be as concerned about it, though I can see issues with that too, but humans are flawed and I see this as a potenttial slippery slope towards tyranny and censorship.

Who decides what the facts are?

..and? We can't have people having public conversations online then because some might take it too seriously? I don't see how this is a criticism towards Joe.

It's kind of related to the abortion discussion. I don't think the question is "should they be allowed to" but rather "when are they allowed to" I think that in some situations there's a case to be made for after-birth-abortion but I don't quite feel like "not wanting to deal with it" is a sufficient reason.

He has never claimed to be a legitimate journalist. He has said repeatedly that you shouldn't take him too seriously - he's a cage fight commentator after all.

To be fair; that was 22 years ago. People change. He's even different now than he was like 5 years ago when I started listening to the show. Way less confrontational for example. I've heard many people talk about him on other podcasts and say that he's exactly the same person in real life than he's on the show.

If I go to a juice bar and order a drink made with one orange, one banana, one kiwi, and two scoops of ice, blended to fill a cup, I fully understand that it's not the ice I'm paying for. If I ask for the same drink without ice, I don’t expect them to throw in another orange and half a banana to fill the cup.

I don’t disagree that with something like soda or coffee, it costs them nothing to replace the ice with more drink. But I also don’t feel entitled to guilt them if they don’t. They’re serving the same amount of drink to everyone - I just prefer mine without ice.

If half of the drink is ice and you order it without ice then it's to be expected that the cup would only be half full.

With soda, they made the drink with the ice melting in mind.

I don't think this is true. The soda machine is probably programmed to deliver just enough soda so that it doesn't overflow the cup. Now, if you order it without ice it'll deliver the exact same amount of soda but the cup wont be as full due to lack of ice.